OK Bas, if I'm misquoting you perhaps I'm just not educated enough to understand? Perhaps you can let me know where I am going wrong as I'm just not getting it?
You advised & I underlined the particular sentence of my interest....
- Here's a fact you may have overlooked - I am not an investor. So the confirmation bias point is not applicable or, it doesn't matter or, I don't care. I don't care either way because I have nothing invested. You and many others do!
Even if you place the confirmation bias at my feet - I still have nothing to lose! Whereas ... well ... many others do!
After stating the above I asked where in any written literature does it state you must be invested to have confirmation bias?
I am stating that the link you provided reads that anyone researching or thinking about buying stocks & not necessarily invested can be guilty of confirmation bias. What I take from your statement is that you could not possibly have confirmation bias because you are not invested. I don't believe that is true & have asked for a link or proof of such which I am yet to receive. How is this misquoting or to you point have no substance when I am merely asking you to back up what you say? If you have the proof & I am blatantly wrong then I will gladly apologise!
You provided questions around the bauxite to which I provided my take however on discovering they ship iron ore out of the port of Mourilyan I asked you why it wasn't feasible for bauxite & still waiting.
- Sadly, and according to your argument it is the bauxite investors in this particular circumstance. You think that's ok?I think your blatant misquoting of my posts is simply a reflection of the lack of anything substantive to add when presented with the harder stuff - the material you seem to find challenging.
No I don't. I don't like seeing anyone lose money champ just that the bauxite is really meaningless to us invested here for the MM/hemp. I certainly hope they certainly do succeed here so that these people can hopefully get their money back on the MM train.
I thought I provided you with answers to the best of my ability but being less educated perhaps you could provide the ones you think I failed at so I can try better?
- You are welcome to your views but I have chosen to make this my last response to you. I think you are more interested in 'tagging' me as opposed to discussing the more complex issues regarding CGB.
That is really sad. I have no animosity to you & don't believe I have "labelled you & called you names". I merely stated that based on ours & other conversations (& especially with the missing answers) I am seeing hypocrisy. Again apologies if that offends you.
Your thinking I am tagging you as opposed to discussing the more complex issues is just dead wrong as that is exactly what I am trying to do.
-Seriously ...
"And all discovered by a poster with 2 posts to his credit.
I shake my head in absolute disbelief and despair."
No ... that wasn't name calling and you have no basis on which to make that claim. I suspect that you know that but are looking to excite the cheer squad.
Fact is, I shook my head in disbelief and despair at your apparent lack of any critical assessment of that material posted on businessnewsaus site. I anticipated better.
Where'e the name calling in that? It is not even remotely capable of being viewed that way. It is an observation based on fact. Where is, precisely, the name calling in anything I wrote?
Not at all name calling, I just find that type of comment in very bad taste to say the least to a 2nd poster on HC. Can you not see the arrogance in that statement? Doesn't have to be name calling to hurt or beliitle does it? I have probably been guilty of it in the past which is why I cringe at such statements when I hear them now
-Did you bother to look at this part of the web site?
https://www.businessnewsaus.com.au/content-marketing.html
Or this maybe?
https://www.businessnewsaus.com.au/commercial-content-policy.html
"We work with the partner to choose a topic and story angles that are relevant to, and engage our audience." Classic! Absolute classic!
What fact? Are you saying it must be a paid advertisement. I'm wondering which of the 10 companies paid to make the list? If it was simply a paid article on CGB only why does it have them at number 5 & not number 1 for instance? The links provided have the following disclaimer:
"Readers can identify which stories are produced with an advertiser by a disclaimer, or call to action at the bottom of the article."
In the stated article there is no such disclaimer so to be fair best you provide the evidence that it is a paid advertisement so indeed we can know the fact otherwise again aren't you basing it on your opinion?
- Anyway, good luck to you with this stock. But no more discussion with you.`
And to you but I certainly hope that is not the case in your discussion with me as I genuinely want to know the answers to the questions posed & in turn I will try & answer any you would like to throw at me again hopefully to your satisfaction!
